Re: [tied] The disappearance of *-s -- The saga continues

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:33:18 +0200 (MET DST), Jens Elmegaard
Rasmussen <jer@...> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:28:15 +0000, elmeras2000
>> <jer@...> wrote:
>>
>> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>> >[JER:]
>> >> >You can always imagine that the facts of the language are non-
>> >> >original and invent some other language and explain that instead.
>> >[MCV:]
>> >> I'm not inventing anything.  Everybody knows that the
>> >> acc.pl. comes from *-m plus *-s.  Isn't it obvious?
>> >
>> >Yes, that's why I want the *-s to be there, while I observe you
>> >pulling it off.
>>
>> No.  I'm adding it.
>
>Yes, you have to add it, because you stroke it from the evidence in the
>first place. I just accept it where I see it. I do see what you mean
>though: The form *toy is plural already, so the accusative plural may be
>expected to add only an accusative marker, which would give *toy-m. If we
>find *to:ms, it may be that *toy-m developed into *to:m before the extra
>*-s was added (if it was).

Yes, that would be the idea more or less.

But I have to protest again against allegations that I'm
striking things from the evidence. This is a complex issue,
and it's almost unavoidable that some of the evidence
contradicts some of the other evidence.

My first statement regarding this issue was:
"The nominative ending *-s (perhaps still *-z) disappears
after _all_ PIE sonorants except /w/."

You'll notice that I already allowed for the possibility
that it was the _voicedness_ of nom.sg. *-z which caused its
subsequent disappearance, though not without first having
caused lengthening of a preceding vowel. I think we're
agreed on that.

Then, while I was in Paris over Easter weekend, Glen
objected that *-s in acc.pl. *-ms does not disappear, and
you (Jens) countered with a statement that the *-s in the
acc.pl. (unlike the nom.sg. *-z) does not disappear [of
course] and does not lengthen.

I'm not ready to follow you there. I don't really disagree
on the first part (the /s/ in *-ms stays), although I said
that I can envisage a scenario where the /s/ is only added
_after_ the working of a soundlaw -Vms > -Vm. The second
part ("plural" *-s does not lengthen) contradicts a certain
interpretation of the plural endings acc.pl. *-o:ns (c.q.
*-i:ns, *-u:ns), and ins.pl. *-o:ys. They are not currently
my favourite interpretations, but I cannot exclude them
altogether.

>> >> What we find is an ins.pl. in *-o:ys, which _could_ mean
>> >> that the "plural" *-s _did_ have a lengthening effect, and
>> >> an acc.pl. in *-o:ms which _could_ mean the same thing.  So,
>> >> unless you can show convincingly that those possibilities do
>> >> not apply, I wouldn't exclude them from consideration.
>> >
>> >If the acc.pl. contained a lengthening sibilant we could not have
>> >forms like *kWet-ur-m.s (Ved. catúras, Lith. ke~turis), but would
>> >have to have something ending in *-wor-m.s . There are no acc.pl.
>> >forms of this structure, ergo its *-s did not lengthen.
>>
>> Doesn't follow.  I could reconstruct *kWet-wér-ms >
>> (lengthening, zero grade) kWtwé:rms > (shortening before
>> CCC) *kWtwérms > (*wé > *ú) *kW(e)túrm.s > catúras.
>> A form like Arm. c^`ors (*kWét-wor-ms) represents the
>> analogical type of acc.pl., which is simply the acc.sg. +
>> *-s.
>
>But wé does not yield ú, it stays wé.

It yields *ú in my view, like *yé yields *í (unless *w- and
*y- are initial, or a *h2 follows). The Sanskrit accent is
original here, as it in in e.g. the gen.sg. of the
ptc.pf.act. *'-wot-s, *-ús-os.

>You are not seriously reasoning with
>the accusative singular of the word for 'four', are you?

I was of course referring to the accusative singular in
general. There are two models for the acc.pl.: one where
the form is identical to the acc.sg. (i.e. a strong case
followed by *-m) with *-s added (e.g. sg. *h2ák^-mon-m =>
pl. *h2ák^-mon-m-s; sg. *p&2-tér-m => pl. *p&2-tér-m-s; sg.
*h1ek^w-o-m => pl. *h1ek^w-o(:)-m-s). The other (as usually
in Sanskrit) is a weak case, different from the acc.sg. (and
ultimately to be equated with a syncopated form of the
gen.pl.), with added *-s (e.g. gen.pl. *&2k^-mén-om =>
acc.pl. *h2k-mén-m-s; gen.pl. *p&2-tr-óm => acc.pl.
*p&2-tr-m'-s; gen.pl. *h1ek^w-oy + -m [*h1ek^w-o(:)-m] =>
acc.pl. *h1ek^w-oy-m + -s [*h1ek^w-o(:)-m-s].


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...